Antw: time-base release schedule?

["Ulrich Windl" <Ulrich.Windl@rz.uni-regensburg.de>]

Hi!

I think the question is not whether a time-based release schedule or a feature-based release schedule is better; instead the question is "when will a release be considered ready?"

Regards,
Ulrich

>>> "David Magda" <dmagda@ee.ryerson.ca> schrieb am 03.07.2018 um 15:52 in
Nachricht <ebb6857e3819d931930b3824966a86e5.squirrel@webmail.ee.ryerson.ca>:
> Hello,
> 
> Would it be possible to moved to a timed release schedule? Looking at the
> ChangeLog, the current release 'schedule' seems to be a bit...
> non-deterministic:
> 
>     http://www.openldap.org/software/release/changes.html 
> 
> Moving towards a fixed-date schedule (once or twice a year?) would allow
> downstream maintainers to update things like Linux distributions in a more
> predictable fashion. The "maintenance releases" would be nothing more than
> tagging all of the patches since the last release and creating a tarball.
> 
> If there are zero patches since the last releases, then a new tarball may
> not be needed (or a "NOP release" could be done just to keep people
> in-practice). Otherwise, regardless of whether is is one or one-dozen
> patches, a new version is revved.
> 
> If there is a security issue, a release could be issued outside of the
> fixed schedule. Ideally (IMHO) security releases would only include the
> security fix so people can be confident that it is a low-risk change that
> won't change / break other behaviours.
> 
> Given that most users of OpenLDAP "consume" it via their
> distribution-of-choice's package, this would (IMHO) increase the chances
> of more recent versions of OpenLDAP being used (especially in Debian and
> Ubuntu, but also Fedora). Recent Debian releases occur in Q2, and Ubuntu
> does April/October (LTSes are April), while Fedora (roughly) does
> May/November. Perhaps a February/September cycle?
> 
> Not sure whether this is something for 2.4, or for 2.5 when it comes out.
> 
> Any thoughts?
> 
> Regards,
> David